My problem is, and pretty much always has been, just how to introduce, articulate and successfully communicate new concepts of representation and comprehension when the paradigm and assumptive frameworks of conventional wisdom fight tooth and nail against novelty or deep (i.e. axiomatic) conceptual, methodological and theoretical innovation ?
The primary purpose of cultural systems, sub-systems and sub- or counter-cultures is also their primary method. That is (and fundamentally): the replication of the process of self-replication.
The reason that no one has been able to provide sufficient, comprehensive and integrated responses to digital security is that no sufficient, comprehensive and integrated response to digital security actually exists.
Bureaucracies and administrative hierarchies possess peculiarly mischievous methods of seeking sustainment and self-justification through the endless production of usefully wasteful products and services…
Complex emergent natural phenomena (of which human organisations are a logical sub-set) possess developmental biases towards evolutionary selection mechanisms favouring systemic continuity…
Organisational systems are as subject to the exigencies of thermodynamics as are any other material systems…
Working under a holistic, meta-theoretical framework of “what is the central similarity or notionally gravitational and logical pivot ?” of explanatory systems introduces multiple considerations of Epistemology and Ontology…
Self-organising cultural, political and communications-system architectures tend to rapidly capitalise upon and exploit technical tool-sets, vectors or opportunities when they appear…
I like the way that when Japanese do sub-culture, they don’t hold back or go anything like half-way…
Do our choices choose us ?
Humanity requires a singular, unifying goal…
Where successfully arguing a point becomes more important than being correct, it doesn’t really matter when you really are correct…
